Summary
The Court upheld acceptance of the lowest bidder’s additional performance security on the first available banking day after intervening holidays and a nationalised-bank strike. On the undisputed facts, this complied with the tender condition rather than breaching its two-day limit. The High Court had no basis to displace the tendering authority’s reasonable decision.
Issues
- Whether the two-day tender requirement was breached when a bank strike prevented earlier submission of additional performance security.
- Whether judicial review justified setting aside the award on that or the other objections raised.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court applied restrained review of tender decisions, finding no mala fides, perversity, irrationality or demonstrated harm to public interest warranting interference. (¶¶ 12, 25, 26, 33)
Held
- The bidder’s disclosed account was with a nationalised bank, and the tender undertaking required payment through its own account. Intervening holidays and the undisputed strike prevented payment earlier. Submission on the first available day was due compliance with Clause 2.22.0(ix), applying the principle that the law does not compel impossibilities. (¶¶ 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The tendering authority verified the banking disruption before accepting the security. Its interpretation of its own document merited deference: no mala fides were alleged, its decision was not perverse or irrational, and prejudice to public interest had not been shown. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33)
- The High Court should not have decided the separate issue of delayed work completion without the full facts or the authority’s view on the extension request. That matter required consideration by the authorities on its own circumstances. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The additional objections concerning income-tax acknowledgments and older partnership documents did not justify cancellation on this record, given the bidder’s explanations, the absence of a demonstrated five-year return requirement, and the tendering authority’s satisfaction as to compliance. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32)
Result
Appeal allowed. Impugned High Court judgment set aside and the unsuccessful bidder’s writ petition dismissed. No costs.